Is there anything in the Genesis account of creation that demands that the
creation days be considered as anything but literal days as we know them?

   If God had wanted us to understand that he created the world in six literal 24
hour days, what would he have said to make it clear to us that this is what he
did?

   If the creation days are not literal days then they are figurative days.  If
they are figurative, then what figure of speech is used and why is it used?

   If a figure of speech is used in reference to the creation days, what
specially designed purpose is this figure being used to point out to us?

   In Christ Jesus
   Jerry D. McDonald




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jerry McDonald :

You ask ; " Is there anything in the Genesis account of creation that demands
that the creation days be
consirered  as anything but literal days as we know them ?"

Jerry , I for one , do not believe that the Genesis account indicates that the
creation occurred in 6 literal
24 hour days 6,000 years ago . The Genesis account certainly does not confirm
such an account and I
believe any interpretation of the Genesis account that draws this conclusion is
false .

Genesis 1:1 is a summary acount of creation :

       In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .

The remainder of the account in Genesis deals with the specific order of that
creation . But according to that
account , the sun and the moon , that regulate the days and seasons was not
created until the fourth day .
This means to me that at least the first four days of creation were not literal
days . this is not a matter of
dealing figuratively with the language of Genesis , but simply a proper
interpretation .

With respect to evolution , which is a scientific theory with substantial
scientific evidence , I believe the
accounts in Genisis of the creation of the plant and animal kingdoms is
consistent with an evolutionary
account , Genesis 1:11 says ; "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" . Genesis
1:20 says ; "Let the waters
bring forth the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly above the
earth in the open fermament of
heaven" .  And Genesis 1:24 says ; "Let the earth bring forth the living
creature after its kind , cattle and
creeping thing , and beast of the earth after its kind" . These passages
certainly sound like an account
that is consistent with evolution . You can call me a theistic evolutionist if
you like .

PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS

                                                                          
Ulysses




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :

What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the above subject would
at least draw some comments ,
negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume that everyone agrees
with my position . If my post
was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .

P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been successful in joining
the Stone-Campbell List .

PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS

                                                                                
Ulysses

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Questions concerning the creation days



--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald
<jerry@...> wrote:
>
> Is there anything in the Genesis account of creation
> that demands that the creation days be considered as
> anything but literal days as we know them?

Yes.

"The deep" is not oceans, as we know them.

"Waters", as we know them, are not out there beyond
the stars.

"Earth", as we know it, is not surrounded by water.

"Trees", as we know them, do not produce fruit that
one can eat and live forever.

"Snakes", as we know them, don't talk.


> If God had wanted us to understand that he created
> the world in six literal 24 hour days, what would
> he have said to make it clear to us that this is
> what he did?

That's a pretty long list!

Briefly, He would have removed the figurative language
from Genesis and told us straight out that the "serpent"
was the devil.


> If the creation days are not literal days then they
> are figurative days. If they are figurative, then
> what figure of speech is used and why is it used?

They are figurative of long, undefined periods of time.

The figure was used because the Genesis account was
originally orally transmitted and they are memory
aids for the order of creation -- besides, those early
people couldn't count very high.


> If a figure of speech is used in reference to the
> creation days, what specially designed purpose is
> this figure being used to point out to us?

That God is still creating -- we are still in the
6th Day.

I have told you this before. In Terry's recent message
he used the same verses you use to try to make your case,
and when I pointed out the problems with that you never
responded.

Terry said (on coCBanned, in message #10871):

> Gen 2:1-3
> Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of
> them, were finished.

We see stars coming into existence right now. They are
part of the "host of heaven".


> 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He
> had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all
> His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the
> seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested
> from all His work which God had created and made. NKJV

> Ex 20:8-11- "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it
> holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
> 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your
> God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son,
> nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your
> female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who
> is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made
> the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in
> them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD
> blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. NKJV


OK -- God rested from *all the works which he had made* --
in *six days* He made the heavens, the Earth, the seas,
and *all that in them is*.

And God is telling this to Israel. But God *created*
Israel:

Isa 43:1
But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob,
and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have
redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art
mine.

Isa 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have
created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have
made him.

Isa 43:21
This people have I formed for myself; they shall shew
forth my praise.

Isa 44:2
Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from
the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my
servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isa 44:21
Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant:
I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou
shalt not be forgotten of me.


What "day" was it when God created Israel, Jerry and Terry?


And it is not just Israel, either.

Ps 102:18
This shall be written for the generation to come: and
the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.

Ps 104:30
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and
thou renewest the face of the earth.

Isa 48:7
They are created now, and not from the beginning; even
before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou
shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.

Isa 54:16
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals
in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for
his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.

Jer 31:22
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter?
for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A
woman shall compass a man.

And there is still more:

Eph 2:10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works, which God hath before ordained that we should
walk in them.

Eph 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created
in righteousness and true holiness.

Col 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or
powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


So we see that God has been creating all the way through.

Jesus said, My Father worketh hitherto. (John 5:17)

If it was the 6th Day when Man was created, it is still
the 6th Day. God has not yet rested. God said, at the
provocation in the wilderness, "They shall not enter my
rest." (Psalm 95:11) God wasn't resting when He led
Israel out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched
arm -- God doesn't take a day off every Earthly week.

The heavens are stretched forth by His power -- and they
don't stop being stretched forth every 144 hours.

In Psalm 90, the entire generation of mankind is but
part of a day -- and they are "carried away as with a flood."

I have already given you the excerpt from the Epistle of
Barnabas:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/5969

I have explained that the order of creation is what we
find in the fossil record, that "Let there be light" took
hundreds of thousands of years, that man never became man
as we know him until he had disobeyed God.

The Genesis creation account is an explanation for the
human condition -- why we are the way we are. We have
left off from the purpose for which we were put here, to
dress and keep the Garden, and we have destroyed it instead.

A defining moment in the Genesis creation account is the
beginning of agriculture. It is the practice of agriculture
that has given us what we call "civilization", but in the
practice of agriculture and the advance of civilization we
have overrun the natural systems that God created to sustain
life on Earth for billions of years. (Those four rivers
in Eden may be seen as these systems.) After we had been
happily living in the "Garden" for hundreds of thousands or
a couple of million years, we decided to start running things
ourselves -- less than about 10,000 years ago, less than 1%
of the time we have been on Earth -- and in that blink of
time we have come to the point where we are destroying not
only everything that lives on the planet but ourselves as
well.

These things are true.

I know you would rather hold to your literalistic
interpretation of Genesis so you won't have to face up to
the reality of what we have done to God's Garden, but there
is no escape from the path we have gone down. "In the day
ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die," is today, *this* "day",
the last day of Creation.



Rick Hartzog
Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism

----------------------------------------------


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
wrote:
>
> Is there anything in the Genesis account of creation
> that demands that the creation days be considered as
> anything but literal days as we know them?
>
> If God had wanted us to understand that he created the
> world in six literal 24 hour days, what would he have
> said to make it clear to us that this is what he did?
>
> If the creation days are not literal days then they are
> figurative days.  If they are figurative, then what
> figure of speech is used and why is it used?
>
> If a figure of speech is used in reference to the
> creation days, what specially designed purpose is this
> figure being used to point out to us?
>
>   In Christ Jesus
>   Jerry D. McDonald
>

To: Reflections
From: Al Maxey
Subject: Reflections Objections
Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008 4:19 PM

REFLECTIONS
by Al Maxey

Issue #368 ------- October 10, 2008

(Excerpts)

From Darrell Broking in Tennessee:

> Al, You might be interested in
> the sermons at --

http://www.bellviewcoc.com/meeting.php .

> You are mentioned in many of them,
> especially the sermon on

>> "The Day of Judgment."

> I agree with everything that was
> said in this series.

The above series of eight sermons (which are all made available in
audio-video format) were delivered by Daniel Denham, who is a
preacher in Newport News, Virginia.

This was a so-called "Gospel Meeting" held at the Bellview Church of
Christ in Pensacola, Florida. It began on Sunday, September 28, 2008
and continued through Friday, October 3, 2008.

The minister of this little congregation of about 70 people is
Michael Hatcher.

What makes this all so very interesting is that both Daniel Denham
and Michael Hatcher are part of the Contending for the Faith bunch,
and are very strong supporters of Darrell Broking.

It appears that my debate with Darrell on the topic of legalistic
patternism has them somewhat rattled if "Al Maxey" is far more the
focus of a week-long "Gospel Meeting" than Jesus Christ.

How sad.

This congregation, in years past, was also the home-base from which
Ira Y Rice, Jr. sent forth his legalistic dogma in the Contending for
the Faith magazine.

I sent an email to Michael Hatcher in which I requested a set of the
DVD's of this gospel meeting.

He wrote back saying that he would send me the entire set just as
quickly as they were made available.

I look forward to receiving this series and examining these lessons
in greater depth.

--- Al Maxey

SPECIAL NOTE --- It has been brought to my attention that a person by
the name of Robert Waters, who lives in Arkansas, if memory serves me
correctly, has written a booklet (about 35 pages long) in which he
has sought to expose me as one of the greatest threats to the Lord's
church today.

It is titled:

> "Al Maxey, Friend or Foe of 'The
> Cross of Christ?' (Philippians 3:18)
> -- A Review of Some of the Teachings
> of a Change Agent and Agitator."

Robert Waters stated in his Introduction,

> "His inconsistent teachings and
> irresponsible actions ... provoked
> me to expose these things in this
> short booklet that is being published
> on my web site and sent to many
> influential brethren across the
> country and world."

He added,

> "I will be refuting some of his false
> and dangerous teachings."

At the end of his booklet, he clearly states,

> "Al is not one of us.
> He is a wolf in sheep's clothing."

He refers to me as a

> "spiritual terrorist, posing as a
> preacher of the gospel in the
> church of the Lord."

He concludes by saying,

> "In view of the facts that have
> been presented, many of which
> are supported by clear statements
> from Al, it has become apparent
> that he is an enemy of Jesus."

For those readers who might want to wade through his many distortions
and misrepresentations, this booklet may be found at --

http://www.totalhealth.bz/al-maxey-friend-or-foe.htm.

--- Al Maxey




--- End forwarded message ---

Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the last
three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail stone in
my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took me
three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had become
infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything so it
will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as soon as
I can.

Jerry
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
>
> What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the above
subject would at least draw some comments ,
> negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume that
everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
>
> P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
>
> PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
>
>
              Ulysses
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

The following is an email from Jack Gibson, a theistic evolutionist, who wrote
in answer to some questions that I had written on the Church of Christ Banned
List and had copied the Maury and Baty list.  My target was Rick Hartzog and/or
Robert Baty, who both say they believe in the Biblical account of creation, but
they believe that the universe and the earth are much older than 100,000 years.

   Mr. Gibson wrote:  Jerry McDonald :  You ask ; " Is there anything in the
Genesis account of creation that demands that the creation days be considered as
anything but literal days as we know them ?"

Jerry, I for one, do not believe that the Genesis account indicates that the
creation occurred in 6 literal 24 hour days 6,000 years ago. The Genesis account
certainly does not confirm such an account and I believe any interpretation of
the Genesis account that draws this conclusion is false.

Genesis 1:1 is a summary account of creation:  In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth.



   McDonald:  When you take into consideration the words that Moses wrote in
Exodus 20:9-11:

   “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the
sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy
son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor
thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore
the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

   It is easy to see that even Moses understood that the creation week took place
in six literal days because he used the creation week to set the Jewish work
week.  I realize that Mr. Hartzog takes the position that we are still in the
sixth day of creation, but the Bible teaches that this is not true because
Genesis 2:1,2 says “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the
host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and
he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.”  If you
notice, the scripture said that the heavens and the earth were “finished” and
God “ended his work” and then he “rested.”  All of this is past tense, not
present or future.

   The statement “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is not a
summary account.  It is the beginning of what is about to happen.  You may be
placing too much emphasis on the word “And” in verse 2 “And the earth was
without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”  Strong’s
Hebrew Dictionary (Sword Searcher Bible Program) says:

   “Strong's Hebrew Dictionary
   776. 'erets
   Search for H776 in KJVSL
   Ura 'erets eh'-rets
   from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or
partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins,
way, + wilderness, world.”

   A literal translation would be:  “In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth.  The earth was without form, void; darkness was upon the face of the
deep.  The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.  God said, Let there
be light.”  When you remove the words “and” there is no way you can say that the
first is a summary and the rest is the account of what happened.  All of it is
the account of what happened.  The word “and” is not in the Hebrew text and
cannot be used to show that verse 1 is a summary while the other is a sort of
giving of the account.

   Mr. Gibson wrote:
   The remainder of the account in Genesis deals with the specific order of that
creation . But according to that account , the sun and the moon , that regulate
the days and seasons was not created until the fourth day.  This means to me
that at least the first four days of creation were not literal days.   This is
not a matter of
dealing figuratively with the language of Genesis, but simply a proper
interpretation.

   McDonald:
   The fact that the sun and the moon were not created until day four shows that
these days had to be literal days.  Plant life could not have survived for eons
of time without the sun and plant life was created on day three,  “And God said,
Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree
yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it
was so” (Genesis 1:11).  How did plant life live without sunlight if the days
were not literal?

   You say we aren’t dealing with “figurative” language, but simply “a proper
interpretation.”  Well, I agree that we have to have a proper interpretation,
but if a passage demands a figurative interpretation then the only way to
properly interpret it is to give it a figurative interpretation.  In order to
give it a figurative interpretation you have to name the figure, and show what
the figure points out, and what constitutes that figure.  If the passage fails
those tests it cannot be given a figurative interpretation.  If it cannot be
given a figurative interpretation, then the only proper interpretation that you
can give it is a literal interpretation which goes back to my position.  Give it
a proper interpretation, yes, but you don’t have a literal interpretation, a
figurative interpretation and a proper interpretation.  You have a figurative
interpretation and a literal interpretation, and the proper interpretation will
be the one which best fits that passage in its
  context.

Mr. Gibson wrote:
With respect to evolution, which is a scientific theory with substantial
scientific evidence , I believe the accounts in Genesis of the creation of the
plant and animal kingdoms is consistent with an evolutionary account , Genesis
1:11 says ; "Let the earth bring forth vegetation" . Genesis 1:20 says ; "Let
the waters bring forth the moving creature that hath life and fowl that may fly
above the earth in the open fermament of heaven" . And Genesis 1:24 says ; "Let
the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind , cattle and creeping
thing , and beast of the earth after its kind.” These passages certainly sound
like an account that is consistent with evolution. You can call me a theistic
evolutionist if you like.

PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS


Ulysses

   McDonald:
   I have to disagree with you that there is any scientific evidence with regards
to Darwinian evolution.  The evolutionary theory is so full of holes that even
the staunchest proponents (such as Richard Dawkins) cannot answer the simple
questions such as “where did the first molecule come from?

   The Genesis account of creation doesn’t resemble evolution in any way form or
fashion.  If you will notice that each thing produced after its own kind, while
in evolution this is not the case.  In evolution things produced things that
were not after their own kind.  How anyone could look at the Bible and say that
he can see evolution in the first chapter is amazing.  That is like Rick
Hartzog’s statement that God is still creating and we are still in the sixth day
of creation.

   Do you, Jack Gibson, believe that in Darwinian evolution that things produce
after their own kind?

   In Christ Jesus
   Jerry D. McDonald




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/01/1001evolution.htm\
l
[link may be line-wrapped]

================================================================

Texas scientists challenge proposal to teach weaknesses of
evolutionary theory
By Laura Heinauer
(American-Statesman, 2008-10-01)

Science curriculum draft that would remove ideas "based upon purported
forces outside of nature" from what Texas students are taught in
biology classes.

Armed with stacks of scientific journals, a group that says it
represents more than 800 Texas scientists is challenging the idea that
discussion of the weaknesses of evolutionary theory belongs in science
classrooms.

The group of professors held a news conference Tuesday in the lobby of
the Texas Education Agency in Austin and said that they would be
watching while a state board rewrites the state public school science
curriculum next year.

"Not a single one (of the articles in these journals) gives us reason
to believe evolution did not occur," said Dan Bolnick, an assistant
professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas, pointing
to stacks of the scientific journal Evolution. "So where are the
weaknesses? Simple: They don't exist. They are not based on scientific
research or data and have been refuted countless times."

Last week, the state released an early committee recommendation for
the new science curriculum that would excise ideas "based upon
purported forces outside of nature" from what Texas students are
taught in biology classes. The curriculum, once approved, will outline
what will be taught about science to every public school student in
the state.

Organizers of the 21st Century Science Coalition said the group formed
about two weeks ago and blossomed in membership in response to
comments by State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, R-Bryan,
who opposes a committee proposal to remove the requirement that the
"strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught in
biology classes.

McLeroy has also said he wants to spell out in the curriculum that
there are limits to what science can explain.

Critics of the teaching of intelligent design and creationism — ideas
that hold that the universe was created by a higher power — say such
language has been used to undermine the theory of evolution.

"It's clear he wants to promote a particular religious agenda," said
David Hillis, a UT integrative biology professor. "Texas public
schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century,
not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a
sound science education."

In an interview after the news conference Tuesday, McLeroy said he
"totally rejected" the idea that he or anyone on the board wants to
inject religion into science classrooms. "I'm not arguing for
supernatural explanations, only testable ones. When I look at the
evidence, I see lots of problems," McLeroy said.

William Dembski, a senior fellow for the Discovery Institute, a think
tank devoted to challenging aspects of evolutionary theory, said the
fossil record defies the theory of evolution in several instances.
Because of the inconsistencies and other reasons, Dembski said, "I'd
argue that constitutes a weakness."

The institute promotes intelligent design.

Coalition member Richard Duhrkopf, who teaches introductory biology at
Baylor University, said that although one might expect his university
— the largest Southern Baptist and second-largest Christian university
in the country — to teach creationism in science classrooms, it does not.

Creationist theories, Duhrkopf said, "just don't make the grade as
science, and to teach them would be to teach a lie to our students."

Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.

Chuckling,
Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@...>
wrote:
>
> Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the last
> three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail stone in
> my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took me
> three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had become
> infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything so it
> will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as soon as
> I can.
>
> Jerry
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> >
> > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the above
> subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume that
> everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> >
> > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> >
> > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> >
> >
>              Ulysses
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:  To: Young Earth Creation Debate
List <youngearthcreationism@yahoogroups.com>
From: Jerry McDonald <jerry@...>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ChallengeII] Debate Propositions

           Debate Propositions Agreed

   Proposition #1

The scientific evidence shows that the universe has been in existence more than
one hundred thousand (100,000) years.

Affirm: Todd Greene
Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

------------------------------------------------


Proposition #2:

The scientific evidence shows that the universe has not been in existence for
more than ten thousand (10,000) years.

Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
Deny: Todd Greene

------------------------------------------------

Proposition #3:

The scientific evidence shows that the earth has been in existence more than one
hundred thousand (100,000) years.

Affirm: Todd Greene
Deny: Jerry D. McDonald

------------------------------------------------

Proposition #4:

The scientific evidence shows that the earth has not been in existence for more
than ten thousand (10,000) years.

Affirm: Jerry D. McDonald
Deny: Todd Greene










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Uh, I think you should have read my response to Jack's post before
you posted this.  It was entitled Response to Gibson.  I posted it
on both this and the cocbannded list.
jdm
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.
>
> Chuckling,
> Todd Greene
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the last
> > three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail
stone in
> > my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took me
> > three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had become
> > infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything so
it
> > will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as
soon as
> > I can.
> >
> > Jerry
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> > >
> > > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the
above
> > subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume
that
> > everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> > >
> > > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> > successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> > >
> > > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> > >
> >
>
> >              Ulysses
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Todd, are you going to debate me or not?  I have agreed to your
propositions.  Or is your being bogged down in programming just an
excuse?
jdm
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.
>
> Chuckling,
> Todd Greene
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the last
> > three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail
stone in
> > my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took me
> > three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had become
> > infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything so
it
> > will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as
soon as
> > I can.
> >
> > Jerry
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> > >
> > > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the
above
> > subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume
that
> > everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> > >
> > > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> > successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> > >
> > > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> > >
> >
>
> >              Ulysses
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

I already told you I was going to debate you. Why are you using
deceitful rhetoric to falsely pretend otherwise?

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@...>
wrote:
>
> Todd, are you going to debate me or not?  I have agreed to your
> propositions.  Or is your being bogged down in programming just an
> excuse?
> jdm
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
> <greeneto@> wrote:
> >
> > Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.
> >
> > Chuckling,
> > Todd Greene
> >
> >
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the last
> > > three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail
> stone in
> > > my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took me
> > > three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had become
> > > infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything so
> it
> > > will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as
> soon as
> > > I can.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> > > >
> > > > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the
> above
> > > subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > > > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume
> that
> > > everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > > > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> > > >
> > > > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> > > successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> > > >
> > > > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > >              Ulysses
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Jerry, I think you should realize that I know what an uncomprehending
hypocrite you are.

- Todd Greene


--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@...>
wrote:
>
> Uh, I think you should have read my response to Jack's post before
> you posted this.  It was entitled Response to Gibson.  I posted it
> on both this and the cocbannded list.
> jdm
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
> <greeneto@> wrote:
> >
> > Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.
> >
> > Chuckling,
> > Todd Greene
> >
> >
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the last
> > > three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail
> stone in
> > > my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took me
> > > three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had become
> > > infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything so
> it
> > > will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as
> soon as
> > > I can.
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> > > >
> > > > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the
> above
> > > subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > > > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume
> that
> > > everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > > > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> > > >
> > > > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> > > successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> > > >
> > > > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > >              Ulysses
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Good, now we can start talking about logistics.  When do you want to
do that?  When can we get back to the Young Earth Creation List?
jdm
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> I already told you I was going to debate you. Why are you using
> deceitful rhetoric to falsely pretend otherwise?
>
> - Todd Greene
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Todd, are you going to debate me or not?  I have agreed to your
> > propositions.  Or is your being bogged down in programming just
an
> > excuse?
> > jdm
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
> > <greeneto@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.
> > >
> > > Chuckling,
> > > Todd Greene
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
<jerry@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the
last
> > > > three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail
> > stone in
> > > > my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took
me
> > > > three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had
become
> > > > infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything
so
> > it
> > > > will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as
> > soon as
> > > > I can.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> > > > >
> > > > > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the
> > above
> > > > subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > > > > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume
> > that
> > > > everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > > > > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> > > > >
> > > > > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> > > > successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> > > > >
> > > > > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> > > >              Ulysses
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Well, think whatever you will, but let's get the show on the road.
jdm
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
<greeneto@...> wrote:
>
> Jerry, I think you should realize that I know what an
uncomprehending
> hypocrite you are.
>
> - Todd Greene
>
>
> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald" <jerry@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Uh, I think you should have read my response to Jack's post
before
> > you posted this.  It was entitled Response to Gibson.  I posted
it
> > on both this and the cocbannded list.
> > jdm
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd S. Greene"
> > <greeneto@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Likely story. Jerry's just making excuses.
> > >
> > > Chuckling,
> > > Todd Greene
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry D. McDonald"
<jerry@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jack, you will have to excuse me.  I have been busy for the
last
> > > > three weeks.  I had a kidney stone the size of a small hail
> > stone in
> > > > my right kidney and it came apart in small pieces and it took
me
> > > > three weeks to pass it all and by that time my kidney had
become
> > > > infected.  I am better now, but I am now behind on everything
so
> > it
> > > > will take me some time to get caught up.  I'll get to you as
> > soon as
> > > > I can.
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Gibson" <u.h.g@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert Baty , Jerry McDonald :
> > > > >
> > > > > What's up with this list . I thought my recent post on the
> > above
> > > > subject would at least draw some comments ,
> > > > > negative or possitive , but alas , nothing . Am I to assume
> > that
> > > > everyone agrees with my position . If my post
> > > > > was simply overlooked , I would be glad to repost .
> > > > >
> > > > > P. S. , Robert , please let me know whether you have been
> > > > successful in joining the Stone-Campbell List .
> > > > >
> > > > > PROMOTER OF UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG ALL CHRISTIANS
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> > > >              Ulysses
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

(Al's reflections on his debate with Broking has many applications to my own
disputes with his adversaries and their like-minded fellows, and provides
further insights into just what I have been up against in my efforts-RLBaty)


REFLECTIONS
by Al Maxey

Issue #372 ------- November 1, 2008

**************************

Men become susceptible to ideas, not by discussion
and argument, but by seeing them personified and
by loving the person who so embodies them.
Lewis Mumford {1895-1990}

**************************

A Post-Debate Evaluation

Reflecting on My Recent Exchange with
a Proponent of Legalistic Patternism in
The Maxey-Broking Debate

In my estimation, the quotation listed at the top of this issue of my weekly
Reflections is one of the most insightful I have ever seen with respect to that
which truly tends to legitimize one's ideas. It was made by Lewis Mumford
(1895-1990), an American historian and writer specializing in science and
technology, and who was especially well-known for his study of cities and urban
architecture. Mumford was also a very close personal friend of Frank Lloyd
Wright, the renowned architect.

The substance of this astute statement is that one is much more likely to win
another over to their way of thinking by their manner of living than by their
manner of argumentation. Someone once wisely observed,

> "People don't care how much
>  you know, until they know
> how much you care!"

Jesus demonstrated this great truth by His actions time and again. Loving the
lost is a far more effective evangelistic methodology than lecturing the lost.

I fear too many of us (myself included) tend to forget this fact far too often
in our dealings with those with whom we differ.

The tragic result is that we frequently end up trying to destroy the very ones
we set out to deliver. Oh, how this could be avoided if people could just see
our love shining over, under, around and through our logic. Embody your ideas;
lovingly live them before others! It will win souls.

I knew when I made the decision to undertake this debate with those who promote
the theology of legalistic patternism that my greatest personal challenge was
not going to be refuting this doctrine (that is actually quite easily done).

My greatest challenge was going to be refraining from descending to the
strategies and tactics that characterize the more hardened adherents of this
dogma.

The challenge would be to try and stay focused on the propositions themselves,
rather than chase after the countless rabbits that would be unleashed when the
opposing side was cornered.

I attempted to stay focused in this debate with Darrell Broking, but must admit
that I was not always successful.

I did chase some rabbits.

I also tried to refrain from turning this exchange into a mud-slinging contest,
as I knew, from almost four decades of experience with those of this mindset,
that this was one of their favorite tactics.

I was determined not to engage in that.

But, I didn't always succeed, and I offer my apologies to both the readers and
to Darrell for those times I descended to that level.

One does not have to wallow in the muck in order to defend Truth, no matter how
appealing such might be to our lower natures. Truth deserves better from us.

Within the fascinating disciplines of philosophy and logic (both of which I
studied rather extensively at the undergraduate and graduate levels) there is an
area known as "Fallacies of Relevance," a prime example of which is the
Argumentum ad Hominem -- "the fallacy of attacking the character or
circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument
instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the
argument."

Such harsh personal attacks are also known as Argumentum ad Personem -- "the
statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and
the locutor's character and circumstances are used to influence opinion."

Whenever such tactics begin to dominate the "argument" of one side or the other
in a debate, it becomes obvious to all that the side in question has either lost
sight of the objective or realizes their position is untenable and indefensible.

Unfortunately, this is an extremely common tactic with those who promote
legalism, and many readers of this debate have lamented the fact that it was
employed much too frequently by Darrell.

However, when one can no longer refute another's teaching, the temptation is
very strong to go after the teacher.

A good example of this from the NT writings is Stephen. Some of the Jewish
legalists of his day "rose up and argued with Stephen, and yet they were unable
to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Thus, they
secretly induced men to say, 'We have heard him speak blasphemous words against
Moses and against God.' And they stirred up the people, the elders and the
scribes, and they came upon him, and they dragged him away" [Acts 6:9-12]. At
this point, I would refer the reader to Reflections #61 -- Why Was Stephen
Stoned? Sadly, things haven't changed much in almost 2000 years!

At the same time, I felt it was absolutely imperative in such a debate as this,
where Truth was at stake, that I stand firmly and unflinchingly for the cause of
freedom in Christ Jesus. Souls are in bondage to the false teaching of
legalistic patternism.

Many are blinded to their condition, others long for liberty but don't know how
to find it. The perishing must be rescued, and this effort is not for the faint
of heart.

When you stand on the front lines and do battle with the evil forces arrayed
against Truth, you will not come away unscarred.

The battle will be brutal; it will not be pretty; but it must be waged.

I have devoted my life to fighting this good fight, just as the apostle Paul
did.

I will not back down, regardless of the cost to me personally (and there are
indeed those, even now, who are attempting with all their might to destroy me,
my ministry and my reputation).

Yes, such is not very pleasant, but it is the price of faithfulness to the cause
of Christ.

Therefore, while I will seek to refrain from slinging mud at the enemy, I will
NOT refrain from slashing as forcefully as possible at this foe with the Sword
of the Spirit.

Satan and his godless forces are a cunning, crafty enemy; they will try every
trick in the book to undermine Truth.

We must be bold in turning back this darkness.

Therefore, I do NOT apologize for the strong, unyielding stand I have taken
against Darrell and his teaching.

Both, in my view, are a significant danger to the church of our Lord Jesus
Christ.

I wish Darrell no personal ill, and I pray for his spiritual enlightenment and
repentance.

However, I will not turn a blind eye to his attempts to subvert the Truth

The apostle Paul spoke of "false brethren" who sought to slither into the midst
of God's saints so as to "spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in
order to bring us into bondage" [Gal. 2:4].

Paul did not put up with them for a second.

Neither will I.

Paul was also brutally blunt in his dealings with them, and he sought to expose
both their teachings and tactics to the light of day so that the saints might be
warned.

I seek to do the same.

There is an old saying, attributed to the English poet Thomas Gray (1716-1771):
"Ignorance is bliss."

If this be true, then I fear many of my beloved brethren are the most blissful
people alive, as they are seemingly oblivious to the nature of the darkness that
surrounds them.

They truly cannot seem to comprehend that men and women professing to be devoted
Christians could, in reality, be servants of the devil. And yet, the apostle
Paul warns us that Satan's "servants disguise themselves as servants of
righteousness" [2 Cor. 11:15].

Brethren, as much as it pains one to acknowledge the fact, there are those among
us who are not of us!!

And it is by their fruit (their actions and attitudes) that their true nature is
revealed.

I'll be honest with you, brethren -- I chose to engage in this debate, in part,
because I knew for a fact that before it was over "character" would become a
factor!!

No matter how well one attempts to cover one's true nature, at some point it
always reveals itself for all to see.

I knew that if given sufficient time and opportunity, the true nature of the
legalistic, patternistic mindset would reveal itself.

And it did.

One of the interesting things about a public debate is that there are a number
of "behind the scenes tactics" that most people never see.

When one's position is weak, for example, one will often engage in a form of
"PsyOps" (various psychological operations developed by the military and
designed to throw one's enemy off, enrage them, and thus try to force them into
a mistake that could prove deadly on the field of battle).

In the latter part of this debate this tactic's been employed by Darrell and
several of the Contending for the Faith leaders.

A flurry of emails have been sent back and forth between them (with a CC to Al
Maxey for his "edification") in which I've been likened to Adolph Hitler, hiding
in a bunker in the desert southwest, surrounded by an army of "jack-booted
thugs" (my Reflections readers).

My fate in hell has been graphically depicted, even to the point of their
colorful description of me "hopping from brick to brick" as my soul blazed away
in the flames.

In an email dated October 29, Darrell Broking wrote the following to his CFTF
buddies,

> "Maxey is dug in behind his New
> Mexican hole in the rock hideaway.

> I guess that his cyber cheerleaders,
> real and imagined, are enough to
> feed his ego and to fuel his error
> for the major burning to come.

> What a wake-up call that will be
>  -- to die and actually be in torments.

> Then he will be a true believer like
> the rest of the demons in torments."

That same morning, Daniel Denham wrote to me,

> "Al, how's it going in the bunker.
> How's your gang of jack-booted
> thugs?

> Keep your head low.

> Remember the John Kerry motto --

>> It's best to get the purple
>> heart heading the other way!"

On October 27, Michael Hatcher wrote,

> "I understand at one time Al was
> in the military. I surely hope our
> military men have more of a
> backbone than the spineless
> cowardly Al, or this nation's
> military is in more trouble than
> I thought."

Darrell Broking laughingly suggested that Al's time in Vietnam was spent hiding
and smoking dope!! And on and on it went.

Brethren, I must give my dear wife Shelly a lot of credit here!! I was very
tempted to give these guys a "piece of my mind," but Shelly was my voice of
godly reason. She urged me repeatedly NOT to lower myself to that level of
ugliness, but to ignore their insults. "They're only trying to bait you into
saying something they can use against you."

I followed her advice, and never responded to those emails. The apostle Peter
cautioned the disciples of Christ Jesus never to return evil for evil, or to
return insult for insult [1 Peter 3:9]. He further wrote, "Do not fear their
intimidation, and do not be troubled ... keep a good conscience, so that in the
thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ
may be put to shame" [vs. 14, 16]. Our Lord said, "Blessed are you when men cast
insults at you, and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you
falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is
great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" [Matt. 5:11-12].

So, why would one even bother to mention these nefarious, malicious tactics of
these hardened, legalistic patternists?

Why not just turn a blind eye and leave them to continue doing what they do?

Because, my brethren, those who are being misled by their false teaching rarely
ever see this side of those who are teaching them.

And, frankly, that rock needs to be overturned so that the writhing, slithering
mass of corruption beneath is exposed to the light.

As Paul clearly explains, these are "false, deceitful workers disguising
themselves as servants of righteousness" [2 Cor. 11:13-15].

They must be exposed for who and what they truly are, rather than allowed to
continue to promote themselves as the representatives of our Lord.

Jesus described the legalists of His day as "hypocrites" (i.e., pretenders;
actors on a stage). "For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside
appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all
uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly
you're full of hypocrisy and lawlessness" [Matt. 23:27-28].. "For out of the
heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false
witness, slanders" [Matt. 15:19]. "You brood of vipers ... the mouth speaks out
of that which fills the heart" [Matt. 12:34]. John urges us to "test the
spirits" of those who profess to be from God to determine if their claim is
genuine [1 John 4:1]. Part of that test, according to verse 5, is whether or not
the speech of these men is worldly in nature. A wolf disguised as a sheep may
fool the flock for a time, but eventually its true nature will exhibit itself. A
good shepherd will never turn a blind eye to that which threatens the flock.
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits" [Matt. 7:15-16].

One of the more subtle "fruits" of those Paul terms "false brethren" is
deceitful scheming.

Paul was constantly on guard spiritually, "in order that no advantage be taken
of us by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his schemes" [2 Cor. 2:11].

A "scheme," by definition, is "a plot; underhanded intrigue; a carefully devised
plan of action for attainment of some goal or object."

I can assure you, from many decades of experience in dealing with the leaders of
legalistic patternism, that if one ever underestimates the force of their
scheming, one will find himself very quickly the victim of "the trickery of men,
by craftiness in deceitful scheming" [Eph. 4:14].

By putting on the full armor of God, we are made "able to stand firm against the
schemes of the devil" [Eph. 6:11], as well as the schemes of his servants. "With
this in mind, be alert and persevere" [vs. 18].

As a result of the flurry of emails these bold "contenders for the faith" were
sending back and forth to one another (and which they CC'd to me), they
inadvertently revealed a scheme that was being hatched to employ Darrell's final
post in our debate to further a separate agenda, one that, according to Darrell,
had been plotted since this past June.

I never responded to those emails ... but I did keep them as evidence!!

Let me give a little background -- eight years ago (April 7 to December 27,
2000) Darrell Broking and I engaged in a fairly lengthy discussion of my book
Down, But Not Out.

That lengthy dialogue can still be read in its entirety online -- Maxey-Broking
Discussion.

Just a few days later, Ron Thomas, a preacher in Illinois, who felt Darrell had
not made a good showing in his critical review of my book, asked if I would
consider a dialogue with him on several of the points he felt needed to be
addressed.

I agreed, and the result was the Maxey-Thomas Debate (held from January 4 to
March 28, 2001).

Darrell has never been satisfied over the years that my book has been adequately
exposed for the "pack of lies" he perceives it to be.

Apparently he believes he has found a "champion" to expose the "fallacies" of my
book -- a preacher in Newport News, Virginia by the name of Daniel Denham..

In an email dated October 29, Darrell wrote Daniel saying, "last June we
discussed the need to expose Maxey for what he is and how that our plans were
for me to debate him then for you to follow up with a debate on MDR with the mad
hatter of maximum error, the micro-patternist Al Maxey."

Needless to say, I was totally unaware at that time of this scheme/plan of
theirs.

As my debate with Darrell drew to a close, however, I was repeatedly challenged
by both Darrell and Daniel to engage the latter in debate regarding my book.

I informed them that I had already conducted two debates on the book, and that I
felt this was more than sufficient.

Therefore, I declined the offer.

Naturally, this did not make them very happy, which has led to the repeated
charges that I am "hiding out in a bunker" here in New Mexico, and that I am
"terrified" of facing the challenges of Daniel Denham.

Michael Hatcher wrote Daniel Denham and Darrell on October 29, "We can hear his
knees knocking all the way here in Florida because of the yellow streak down his
back (he does not have a backbone) resulting in his refusal to sign a
proposition for an oral debate on the subject."

Denham replied on that same date, "All in all, Al's book is a work of fiction
and has no real redeeming value. It adds nothing to the serious study of MDR,
and exhorts people in the sin of adultery to stay in sin."

Since it has become increasingly obvious to these men that I'm not about to
engage Mr. Denham in debate on this matter, Daniel has declared that he will
devote an entire chapter of his upcoming book on MDR to exposing the lies and
deceptions of my own book.

That is fine; he is free to do so.

In an email dated October 26, Darrell wrote Daniel, "If you would like to send
me a small example of how Al lied like this in his Down in the Mouth book, I
will be happy to quote it."

In other words, Darrell is offering to include this information within his final
post in the debate. A few hours later Daniel replied to Darrell, "I'll send you
a couple of examples tomorrow. Since Al steadfastly refuses to debate me on MDR,
then a little dose of what we have gathered on his 'research' needs to be made
available to folks through other means."

Did you notice that phrase that I highlighted?!!

Here is the plot to employ Darrell's final post in the debate to attack my book.

This attack is totally unrelated to the two propositions of the debate, but they
have seen an opportunity, they believe, to get their attack out to the maximum
number of people -- slip it into the final post of the debate when Al Maxey will
have no opportunity to defend himself.

Two days later, on October 28, Darrell wrote Daniel thanking him for the
material, saying, "I added about 3.5 pages of what you sent me in an appendix to
wet the thirst for your material." The next day, October 29, he wrote, "The
appendix just grew by about 3 pages. You may have more material in my 4th
negative than I will."

Did you notice that statement?

Once again, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our debate on the
two propositions dealing with the nature of the NT pattern.

This is nothing less than a blatant attempt to impose numerous pages of
unrelated material for the purpose of whetting the appetites of the readers for
Denham's new book in which he will attack mine.

This is unethical, ungodly and unconscionable. It speaks volumes about the lack
of integrity and character of these men. And these men profess to be ministers
and elders in the church of Jesus Christ?! Frightening!!

As if the above appendix was not violation enough, Darrell came to the
conclusion shortly before posting his final rebuttal in this debate that an even
more extensive appendix needed to be added as well.

This was equally unrelated to the two propositions of this debate, and, in fact,
was written primarily by Daniel Denham, who is not even a participant within
this debate.

Not only is Darrell introducing new material unrelated to the debate, he is
actually introducing a new participant.

The purpose of this second appendix was to attack another preacher in the state
of Virginia. This preacher, some time back, sent me an email in which he exposed
some of the practices of both Darrell and Daniel.

I did not share that email with my readers (and still haven't), but instead
informed Darrell and Daniel of these accusations (with this other preacher's
prior permission) and asked them about them.

They went ballistic, and Darrell then included 10 pages of emails attacking this
poor guy at the end of his third rebuttal (which also was inappropriate, as many
readers pointed out). Daniel Denham declared he would prepare a written response
to this other preacher, and in an email to Daniel dated the morning of October
31, Darrell wrote, "Daniel, if your reply to Tim is ready, and you would like,
we can attach it to this post as an appendix."

Once again, an effort was being made to use the final post of this debate as a
vehicle for attacking another minister who has nothing to do with the debate
itself.

Darrell Broking did indeed carry through with his scheme.

His final rebuttal post, which appeared the evening of October 31, was 25 pages
long (in a Word document). The first six pages pertained to the debate ... the
other 19 did not. Appendix A was the attack by Daniel Denham on my book. It was
about 6 pages long. Appendix B was the attack upon the other preacher within the
state of Virginia. It was about 13 pages long, and was again primarily written
by Daniel Denham.

Neither appendix had any bearing whatsoever upon the two propositions of the
debate, and were for the most part not even the work of my debate opponent, but
rather the rantings of someone outside the debate with whom Darrell Broking
plotted and schemed.

The goal?

To use the final post of the debate as a tool for this other man's attack
against (1) my book on MDR and (2) another preacher in Virginia against whom
they both had some personal vendetta.

This action taken by Darrell was so egregious that it boggles the mind!! Darrell
then sent me an email the morning of October 31 (to which I didn't respond, by
the way), following his invitation to Daniel to include his attack against the
other preacher.

Darrell wrote,

> "Daniel says 'Boo,' so run and hide, Al.

> I have a sermon that is called 'What
> Kind of Chicken are You Anyway?"

> I will have to add a category to include
> the 'yellow speckled enchanted clucker' > of the New Mexican variety.

> By the way, Al, feel free to kill us with
> your kindness.

> You are such the example of love."

Perhaps a bit of familiarization with the basic standards governing debate might
be in order.

According to every source I was able to locate, the introduction of new material
into the final presentation of a debate is strictly forbidden. "Judges should be
especially wary of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the
affirmative team has no chance to respond, thus a new argument is especially
unfair.
The judge should ignore any new arguments that are introduced."

This is from the set of standards produced by the International Debate Education
Association. The same rule exists within the standards of the National
Parliamentary Debate Association.

Therefore, Darrell has violated the basic standards of public debate by
providing the new information he did.

That violation is compounded by the fact that the material introduced had
absolutely nothing to do with the propositions being debated.

This was then further exacerbated by the fact that this was willfully and
maliciously done for the purpose of whetting the appetites of the readers for
another man's work on another topic in which his debate opponent's work on a
separate topic than that of the debate would be attacked.

It was further done, in the case of the second appendix, in an attempt to try
and use this debate as a means of seeking to destroy the ministry of another
gospel preacher.

This is wrong on so many levels it is mind-boggling.

So, what is to be done?!

I can't appeal to the "moderator" of the debate, because the moderator of the
debate, David Brown, is part of the very bunch exchanging these vicious emails,
and is thus clearly in the camp of my debate opponent (which itself is a
violation of every standard of debate).

The solution therefore, as stated in George McCoy Musgrave's work "Competitive
Debate: Rules and Techniques" (which has been the standard for many debaters for
over half a century), is two-fold: (1) "call the attention of the audience to
the situation," and (2) "throw out the arguments in question."

I have, therefore, done both. I've informed you, the many readers of this
debate, of this violation, and I have removed both appendices in question from
Darrell's final rebuttal.

I clearly can't prevent him from including it in his final post to the
ContendingFTF Internet group, nor can I prevent David Brown from including it on
his congregation's web site (though, if he has any integrity left at all, I
would certainly hope he would refrain from doing so).

Nevertheless, it will not appear at the site (my own web page) where 99% of
readers are going to be reading this exchange.

This will undoubtedly infuriate Darrell, Daniel and their few radical supporters
immensely, but ... So Be It.

These people should have known better than to have tried such a godless tactic!
This is NOT an example of how genuine Christians behave ... a fact that I
sincerely pray is not lost on the readers of this debate!!

Additional Reflections

The six pages of Darrell's final rebuttal (those pages which actually HAD any
relevance to the debate itself) are little more than a compilation of 19 points
in which Darrell misrepresents my beliefs and teachings so horribly that people
who know me will either laugh hysterically in disbelief, or they will wonder if
this poor fellow even bothered to read anything I wrote in this debate.

My wife and I both read it with our jaws on the floor!!

It is pure nonsense!

Enough said!

> So, Al ... was it worth it?! Or, was
> this whole exchange a colossal
> waste of time? ... just an exercise
> in futility and frustration?

Brethren, let me state emphatically: It was worth every painful minute!!

Why?

Because I've received a great number of personal emails, letters and phone calls
from all over the world thanking me for exposing this false doctrine, and
informing me that, as a result of carefully and prayerfully considering what was
said on both sides of this exchange, they were taking immediate steps to break
the chains of their bondage and were going to seek out far more grace-centered
congregations with which to work and worship Precious souls are at last
perceiving the worth of liberty and are discovering freedom in Christ Jesus.
They are abandoning their enslavement to LAW, and are now immersing themselves
in a GRACE they never knew existed If even one soul had experienced such a
transformation ... it would be worth it.. But, there are many writing to tell me
they have experienced it.

Thus, I do not regret a single moment of this debate and thank God He considered
me worthy to represent His Truth on this occasion. Eyes have been opened!
Prayers have been answered!

Will anything I have said ever touch the hearts of the hardened leaders of this
faction within our movement?

Only God knows the answer to that.

I tend to doubt it, but I am not willing to write any man off, and therefore I
will continue to try to reach them.

We know for a fact that some are so hardened that "God will send upon them a
deluding influence so that they might believe what is false" [2 Thess 2:11].

I pray that these men have not reached that point, and I ask that each of you
pray for them too. How wonderful it would be to welcome them into the embrace of
grace!!

Some readers delight in basic statistical data, so for those of this mindset let
me give the following information. Response times for the two participants in
this debate were: Al -- 31 days. Darrell -- 103 days. Total number of words in
Al Maxey's eight posts: 66,140. Total number of words in Darrell Broking's eight
posts: 61,848 (or, a total of 73,077 if the two deleted appendices are counted).
Darrell Broking had the distinction of having both the longest as well as the
shortest posts: his fourth affirmative was 20,306 words. His second rebuttal was
only 1196 words. Nothing earth-shattering here, but these stats might be of
interest to some!

Also, just by way of general interest: near the very end of the debate Darrell
and his family moved from Tennessee to Florida (the Pensacola area, I believe
... I asked him where, but he refused to tell me).

The gavel has fallen on The Maxey-Broking Debate.

The readers must now weigh in the balance the information presented by each
participant, as well as the character and credibility of each, and make a
determination which one of us, if either, most clearly presented the Truth of
God's Word, as well as which one of us, if either, best embodied that Truth in
their actions and attitudes. There will undoubtedly be strong points and weak
points within the presentation of both sides. After all, we are both fallible
human beings. Nevertheless, the major differences between the two positions on
the nature and scope of God's expectations with regard to both salvation and
fellowship should be rather clear to most readers.

The choice is yours to make.

May you choose wisely, as much is at stake. God bless you all, and thank you for
taking the time to consider this extensive body of information. May it touch
your hearts and transform your lives!


***************************

Down, But Not Out
A Study of Divorce and Remarriage
in Light of God's Healing Grace
A 200 page book by Al Maxey
Publisher: (301) 695-1707
www.zianet.com/maxey/mdrbook.htm

***************************

Readers' Reflections

From a Minister/Elder in Wales, Great Britain:


Brother Maxey, I am a church elder and preacher (70 years old) in North Wales,
Great Britain. In the course of preparing a Bible study on the book of Obadiah I
came across your web site. Your Study of Obadiah, in your series on the Minor
Prophets, proved very helpful -- excellent, even -- and has motivated me today
to investigate your web site further. I am absolutely fascinated, and can see
that there is going to be hours of reading in the next months!! A quick glance
especially at the Maxey-Thrasher Debate on the subject of the eternal destiny of
the wicked has been enough to excite me unto further reading! I've already (very
secretly) come to hold a non-orthodox position on this subject of "eternal
torment in a living death" for the wicked, a doctrine that just doesn't seem to
make sense logically or morally, nor does it accord with the God of grace and
love. So, I will be fascinated to see what you and Thomas Thrasher have to say
on the subject, though I think I know the one with whom I will be agreeing!
Thank you for providing this excellent web site, and for keeping to a true
Christian spirit of love.

From a Minister in Tennessee:


Brother Al, Although I am a Tennessean, I didn't know the story of Silena Moore
Holman. Thanks for sharing this moving story about a true leader in the Body of
Christ. I wish I'd had the opportunity to meet her and thank her in person for
her courage, determination and biblical soundness. Oliver Howard delivered a
series of lectures on women and their involvement in church leadership at the
Pepperdine Lectureship several years ago. It's worth hearing. As always, my
brother, you feed and challenge your readers with insightful writing:
well-documented, researched and biblically accurate! Thank you especially for
exposing the legalism which has thwarted our movement for decades, and for
helping the huddled masses, yearning to breathe free, to see the light of
freedom!! Godspeed, my brother!

From an Elder in Texas:


Brother Al, At my 83-year-old mother's funeral, the preacher (Charlie
Middlebrook of the Impact Church of Christ in Houston) quoted Proverbs 31:31,
"Let her works bring her praise at the city gate." He said that we should let
this occasion (her funeral) be our version of the city gate, therefore we should
give her the praise she deserved. He then led the entire audience in a hearty
round of applause for that godly woman (widowed at the age of 36) who raised
three children to love the Lord. I had never seen that done at a funeral before,
but it was most moving, and I thought it was quite appropriate. It is so
unfortunate that one's legalistic mindset keeps one from being blessed in
different ways!

From a Minister in Texas:


Brother Al, Thank you for your comment on John Waddey's article about
"clapping." My mother died of cancer about 30 years ago, and her six children
(of which I am one) were glad to clap and rejoice at her wonderful victory. But,
of course that was back in the 70's, and this wasn't "an issue" yet. If people
like Waddey are going to speak and write, then I would hope that they/we would
try to use some general logic and make cogent remarks! That piece by John Waddey
on clapping was nothing to applaud, from my perspective. But resurrection ... I
can wear out my hands on that. Carry on, brother Al. I hurt with you on some of
the empty remarks from some brethren who just cannot seem to remember that we're
to be known for LOVING one another!!

From a Reader in Texas:


Brother Al, In your last issue of Reflections you have written about one of my
personal heroes of faith -- Silena Moore Holman -- and I just wanted to write
and tell you how much I appreciated what you had to say. If she had only lived a
hundred years later, I believe she would be doing just what you are doing in
engaging the patternistic, legalistic side of our fellowship. She was truly well
ahead of her time in fighting for gender equality within the church. Those of us
who are carrying on that fight are also trying to do it with the grace that she
showed. I appreciate you so much, Al. Your wonderful article on Silena Moore
Holman will be linked in a day or two to my own web site on Gender Equality in
the Churches of Christ. I pray God will continue to bless your ministry.

From a Minister in California:


Brother Al, I have not written in quite a while, but the article on Sister
Holman was excellent (I've come to expect no less from you). I forwarded it to a
close friend of mine who is the great-granddaughter of T. B. Larimore. I think I
told you that I had done the funeral service for T. B.'s granddaughter a few
years ago out here in California. She had previously stated that she
specifically wanted me to preach her funeral service because she knew that I
would use proper English (she had been reading my articles for many years), and
also because I was a graduate of Mars Hill Bible School in Florence, Alabama
(which was originally founded as a college for preachers by Brother Larimore).
I'm still a faithful reader, Al, and appreciate so much what you publish, even
though I don't comment much these days.

From a Reader in Texas:


Brother Al, Excellent study (as usual). Keep up the good work. I couldn't help
noting, however, that Lipscomb's comment about the end result of Sister Holman's
work --- "If women enter the public sphere, loose marriage, easy divorce,
indisposition to bear children, and attendant social impurity will ensue" ---
does indeed pretty much tell what has actually come about in our great nation. I
doubt that it was because of women getting the vote or speaking out, but what
Lipscomb said did happen. Just a thought -- not a criticism of your work or
hers!!

From an Elder in Florida:


Brother Al, Legalists have to be the most miserable people on the planet -- I
know, as I used to be one! Their issue about there being no place for
"entertainment" within a "worship service" just goes to show how little they
know the Lord Jesus or the holy Word of God. I'm sure glad that heaven is not
going to be like the so-called "worship" found in the legalistic congregations
of the Churches of Christ. When will these brethren ever figure out that the NT
has never outlined a "worship service"? If brethren do not find our times of
worship entertaining, then they are in a coma! How can one not be entertained
when one is with a group of believers who are singing, praying, communing and
listening to God's Word being expounded? Only a legalist would find nothing
entertaining in our times of worship. Such is ridiculous and it is foolishness.
If they only understood that worship is not like a light switch (you can't turn
it on at 10 a.m. and then off at 12 noon), but is rather 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, 52 weeks a year, then they would not get so hung up on all these little
tidbits of legalism. But, what are ya gonna do except love 'em and pray for
'em?!! By the way, at our congregation we applaud whenever someone comes back
from the dead!! I can't help but be filled with joy and excitement when a lost
person becomes a saved person. I just can't control myself. As a matter of fact,
after I bring them up out of the water I usually hug them right then and there,
and then I join in with my other brethren in applauding. There's just something
about the dead being reborn that, to me anyway, warrants such. By the way, great
article on Silena Moore Holman. She is truly a model for all.

********************
If you would like to be removed from or added to this
mailing list, contact me and I will immediately comply.
If you are challenged by these Reflections, then feel
free to send them on to others and encourage them
to write for a free subscription. These articles may all
be purchased on CD. Check the ARCHIVES for
details and past issues of these weekly Reflections:
http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Some time ago I mentioned that the "action" was going on over on the coCBanned
list.

Indeed, there have been many new and exciting developments in the discussions
since I mostly quit posting here.  The best are the latest messages; the older
messages not so much so.

To bring this list up to date, and try to insure a preservation of the record, I
will be forwarding to this list many of the messages of the coCBanned list.

Not all, but those I felt were worthy of putting into the archives here.

I hope you will bear with me in the process of forwarding these messages.  The
subject headers should reflect that the messages are forwards by the use of the
"FW" prefix.
I intend to leave the subject headers themselves otherwise unchanged from how
they appear on the coCBanned list.

Here's a coupld of hints as to the conclusion that may be drawn from the
coCBanned experience of recent weeks:

> My "Goliath of GRAS"...still the one to beat!

> Still no "David"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 3:53 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: atheism and evolution...was: Sn1987a

Pi, regarding Psalm 14:1 you wrote:

> Psalm 14:1 says:

>> The fool hath said in his heart,
>>There is no God.

> Nowhere in the verse does it say
> ALL fools. I've certainly met many
> fools who do not deny God.

I propose, with no sustained rebuttal to date, that the "meaning" is that "all"
the fools addressed by the passage "say in their hearts there is no God".

There are, as you suggest, other kinds of fools who are not atheists, but that
is different issue.

I don't think you, or anyone else, is going to be able to find any fool
addressed in Psalm 14:1 that does not say in his heart "there is no God".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: PIASAN@...
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 4:40 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [coCBanned] Re: atheism and evolution...was: Sn1987a




Pi writes:

> To put it in terms of set theory...

>> while all atheists may be
>> evolutionists,

> it does not follow that

>> all evolutionists are atheists.

> Thinking the two are equivalent
> is a clear logic fallacy.

That kinda sounds like,

>> while all Psalm 14:1 fools may
>> be atheists,

> it does not follow that Psalm
> 14:1 means that

>> all atheists are Psalm 14:1
>> fools.
************
Pi:
Psalm 14:1 says:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
x
Nowhere in the verse does it say ALL fools.  I've certainly
met many fools who do not deny God.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 8:18 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Veto Roley again confirms my observations!

Veto writes:

> I (Veto Roley) took...and then...

What Veto is still in denial regarding is his failed effort to measure up to his
boast that he can prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his
>> heart there is no God"

> means, is properly
> interterpreted to mean

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley even now seems to not want to refer to his "17 pieces" as his highly
touted, but failed, "two-column Euclidean proof" that he never provided any
authorities in support thereof.

The substance of Veto Roley's continued demonstration is in the fact that he
does not deal with or even attempt to rebut, which he cannot do, the fact that

> for all Veto Roley knows

>> there are some things
>> more than a few thousand
>> years old,

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> valid, and

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> sound.

By his own admission, that is just fine with Veto Roley.

And that and his personal problems appear to be what keeps him from taking his
own advice and just "shutting up"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty


-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:40 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Batty continues his irrationality by writing, "Am I become your enemy because I
have told you the truth?  I provide some good empirical evidence that such can
be the case."

Batty, your writings PROVE you wouldn't know Truth if it was presented on a
level that a kindergarden student could learn Truth. I took the patently, prima
facie obvious (an atheist is fool for denying the Christian God if that God
exists) and then, since you are so blind to Truth that you don't comprehend the
obvious, broke it down into 17 child-size pieces for you, demonstrated the Truth
of each of those pieces and painstakingly showed you how those 17 pieces led to
the conclusion that, if the Christian God exists, the atheist is a fool for
rejecting Him. It was demonstrated to you in detail that a person could be
perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "wise" in one area (for instance, there is
nothing that prevents an atheist from being the best civil engineer in the world
or from solving very complex math problems), but very foolish in another area.
It was shown to you that a person could be wise in one area and, AT THE SAME
TIME, foolish in another.
  Moreover, I showed you that, for the purposes of this statement, one can claim
to be an atheist, agnostic or apathetic toward religion and fall under the
"fool" category in regards to God.

Then you write that you have "good empirical evidence" to prove -- what? That I
have� a beef with you for some reason or that the atheist is wise for
rejecting God if He exists (and Batty, either the athiest is a fool for
rejecting God or he is wise -- those are the ONLY two choices open to you). I
haven't seen evidence of either. I stand by my promise that once you start
behaving rationally and intelligently, then I will stop calling you a fool. You
can do this in one or two ways -- admit that you are wrong in regards to an
athiest being a fool or declare yourself to be either an athiest or agnostic.
The first admission admits the Truth. The second admission provides a rational
context for your denial that the athiest is a fool for rejecting God. It is your
inablity to comprehend Truth that results in me calling you Batty.

As for any "evidence" that you might have presented... I simply haven't seen
anything. All I've seen is the same old tired rehashing of what has been proven
false. To put it in a way that you may can understand -- although I have my
doubts that you have enough rationality to understand anything -- it would be
like you arguing Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or the
validity of Piltdown Man in a discussion of evolution AFTER those items had been
carefully explained and demonstrated to you as being scientific frauds. The more
your argue your discredited points, the lower your credibility gets -- even
though your credibility with me is so low I really don't know how it could get
any lower. Repeating those arguments which have been correctly rejected as
outright error does not make your errors correct, Batty. Batty, you haven't made
a valid argument since I've been on this board, with Truth being the arbiter of
what is valid.

Truth, Batty... no. You don't know Truth. This is why you have ZERO credibility
with me. This is why that I distrust ANYTHING you say.

Veto





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 3:58 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri

Batty,

There are solid, good reasons that you got your nickname of "Batty," since you
prove yourself of being irrational.

You write, for instance that I "appear to simply post commentaries agreeing with
me that Psalm 14:1," suggesting that the commentaries do not say that an atheist
is a fool. Yet, it appears, you have not read the commentaries.

Let's take the one, Adam Clarke's, that appears, on the surface to agree with
you. Adam Clark writes about the Hebrew word "nabal", "The word is not to be
taken in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have been
some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are others who,
without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his providence; that is,
they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but give him nothing to do, and
no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they are very numerous, who, while
they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they
were persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward."

What Clarke says here is that the term "nabal" -- which is translated "fool" --
is not limited to the professed atheist. And, I agree with him on his point.
Instead of being limited to the professed atheist, he says nabal refers to the
following groups of people:

1) professed atheists and agnostics
2) Deists -- and you need to understand the religious philosophies of Clarke's
time when deism was held by many people, including Thomas Jefferson Basically,
Deism states that God created the universe, set the laws of nature in motion and
then retreated to heaven, having little concern or oversight about matters in
the universe.
3) those who live life as if God did not exist, even if they verbally
acknowledge His existence AND His real presence on the earth.

I also agree that these three classes are included in the term "nabal" and have
stated so in the past. But, Batty, our discussion is not about classes other
than professed atheists. Just as all practical atheists -- people who live as if
there is no God regardless of their profession of His existence -- are fools,
particularly are all professed atheists. Clarke is not saying that the professed
atheist is not a fool, but that the term fool covers more than just the
professed atheist.

Or, we can go to John Calvin, "I am content to follow the more generally
received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons, who have cast off
all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness."
This is the same argument being made by Clarke. And Calvin's description of the
fool -- someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity" -- certainly applies to the professed atheist. Who can argue that the
atheist is someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity."? The atheist is so unafraid of God that he does what few people would
do -- publically testifying that God does not exist. Further, since there is no
iniquity, no sin, greater than denying the existence of his Creator, the atheist
also abandons himself to inquity, chosing to do what seems right in his eyes
rather than submitting to the Lordship of his Creator. Calvin, then, describes
the atheist as
  being a fool.

Or, do you suppose Charles Spurgeon agrees with you? "The Atheist is the fool
preeminently, and a fool universally." Maybe, I misquoted Matthew Henry and he
agrees with you, "The sinner here described is an atheist." Or, did I miscopy
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, "The practical atheism and total
and universal depravity of the wicked, with their hatred to the good, are set
forth."

Batty, the atheist is a fool for saying in his heart that there is no God

Veto

---------------------------------------------------

Posted by:      "Robert Baty"
       rlbaty@...
               �

           rlbaty50



       Wed Oct�15,�2008 4:49�pm        (PDT)


             Veto Roley again misrepresents the issue in dispute.



Veto Roley's attempt to reason was incorrect, as previously noted,
because, for all his effort he failed to measure up to his boast
regarding Psalm 14:1.



Even now, for all his effort, he appears to simply post commentaries
agreeing with me that Psalm 14:1 tells us something about the "fools"
referenced therein.



The statement in Psalm 14:1 that



> the fool sayeth in his heart

> there is no God



does not logically convert, mean, or interpret to



> all atheists are fools.



Veto can go anywhere else he wishes to try and make an argument that
all atheists are fools, but for all his effort it won't make Psalm 14:1
say so!



That's my unrebutted position, after many failed efforts by Veto Roley and
others.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----

From: Veto F. Roley

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:28 AM

To: coCBanned@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri



Batty,



You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid
argument that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian
God exists, a God who will either, as some believe, destroy the
non-believing soul at judgment or, as the orthodox position holds and I
believe, banish the unbelieving soul for eternity to a hell prepared to
punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that the atheist is NOT a
fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or, at worst,
banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire does
not lessen.



As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also
prove the following claims as well...



That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use
the cases of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns
Coe's song catalog despite the fact that royalties have long since
covered his tax and penalty debt -- or any other taxpayer who has tried
to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS doesn't play...)



That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and
who has better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a
fight (here you can use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found
out he COULD go through a plate glass window after throwing a bucket of
ice at Charles Barkley)



That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you
could mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse --
both legal and illegal drugs -- in 2003)



That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you
could mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from
tobacco-related illnesses and cancers)



Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1
does not refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some
different manner. But, who are we to trust on this matter of
interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or
John Calvin?



"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a
fool, but also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not
have been unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am
content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is,
that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and
abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness. David does
not bring against his enemies the charge of common foolishness, but
rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood of those whom
the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that those
who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel
in sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and
exercise the ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It
is therefore important for us, in the first place, to know, that
however much the world applaud these crafty and scoffing characters,

who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the
Holy Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity
more brutish than forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on
Psalms - Volume 1 -- http://www.ccel. org/ccel/ calvin/calcom08. xx.i.html)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?



"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool
universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and
having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice.
Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very
existence of the Most High, so it is also the greatest imaginable
folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which
is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner
could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some
sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the
existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so
doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth
from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a
crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible
vengeance on

the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his
own throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever:
would to God the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes
hundreds, and a noisy blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as
lepers spread the plague." (C.H. Spurgeons's The Treasury of David --
http://www.studylig ht.org/com/ tod/view. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 014&verse= 001)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?



"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn
nabal, which we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible
person, a villain. One who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and,
in his darkness and folly, says in his heart, "There is no God."And
none," says one, "but a fool would say so." The word is not to be taken
in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have
been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are
others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his
providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power,
&c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There
are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to
acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were
persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward." (Clarke's

  Commentary -- http://www.godrules .net/library/ clarke/clarkepsa 14.htm)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?



"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here
described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor
of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says
this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but
wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there
may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a
fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked
and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible -- http://bible. christiansunite. com/mhcc.
cgi?b=Ps& c=14)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset &
David Brown?



"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked,
with their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's
judgments when He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His
delivering power.



1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to
right reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)."
(Commentary Critical and Explanatory

on the Whole Bible -- http://www.biblestu dytools.net/ Commentaries/
JamiesonFaussetB rown/jfb. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 14)



If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone
who claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...



Veto

"The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years
of his life." --Muhammad Ali

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 2:28 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri

Batty,

You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid argument
that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian God exists, a God
who will either, as some believe, destroy the non-believing soul at judgment or,
as the orthodox position holds and I believe, banish the unbelieving soul for
eternity to a hell prepared to punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that
the atheist is NOT a fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or,
at worst, banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire
does not lessen.

As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also
prove the following claims as well...

That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use the cases
of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns Coe's song catalog
despite the fact that royalties have long since covered his tax and penalty debt
-- or any other taxpayer who has tried to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS
doesn't play...)

That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and who has
better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a fight (here you can
use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found out he COULD go through a
plate glass window after throwing a bucket of ice at Charles Barkley)

That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you could
mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse -- both legal and
illegal drugs -- in 2003)

That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you could
mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from tobacco-related
illnesses and cancers)

Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1 does not
refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some different manner.
But, who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or John Calvin?

"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a fool, but
also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not have been
unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am content to follow
the more generally received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons,
who have cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are
convicted of madness. David does not bring against his enemies the charge of
common foolishness, but rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood
of those whom the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that
those who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel in
sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and exercise the
ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It is therefore important
for us, in the first place, to know, that however much the world applaud these
crafty and scoffing characters,
  who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the Holy
Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity more brutish than
forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on Psalms - Volume 1 --
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.xx.i.html)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?

"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool universally. He
would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and having denied God it is
no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice. Sin is always folly, and as it is
the height of sin to attack the very existence of the Most High, so it is also
the greatest imaginable folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest
evidence, which is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner could by his
atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some sense, although much
wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the existence of fire does not
prevent its burning a man who is in it, so doubting the existence of God will
not stop the Judge of all the earth from destroying the rebel who breaks his
laws; nay, this atheism is a crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring
down terrible vengeance on
  the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his own
throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever: would to God
the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes hundreds, and a noisy
blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as lepers spread the plague." (C.H.
Spurgeons's The Treasury of David --
http://www.studylight.org/com/tod/view.cgi?book=ps&chapter=014&verse=001)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?

"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn nabal, which
we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible person, a villain. One
who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and, in his darkness and folly, says
in his heart, "There is no God."And none," says one, "but a fool would say so."
The word is not to be taken in the strict sense in which we use the term
atheist, that is, one who denies the being of a God, or confounds him with
matter. 1. There have been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God.
2. There are others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny
his providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but
give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they
are very numerous, who, while they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in
their heart, and live as if they were persuaded there was no God either to
punish or reward." (Clarke's
  Commentary -- http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkepsa14.htm)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here described is
an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor of the world, no
Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says this in his heart. He cannot
satisfy himself that there is none, but wishes there were none, and pleases
himself that it is possible there may be none; he is willing to think there is
none. This sinner is a fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of
it: he is wicked and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible --
http://bible.christiansunite.com/mhcc.cgi?b=Ps&c=14)

Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown?

"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked, with
their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's judgments when
He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His delivering power.

1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to right
reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)." (Commentary Critical
and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible --
http://www.biblestudytools.net/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ps\
&chapter=14)

If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone who
claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...

Veto

---------------------------------------------------

Posted by:      "Robert Baty"
       rlbaty@...
               �

           rlbaty50



       Tue Oct�14,�2008 7:26�am        (PDT)


That's Veto Roley failing to demonstrate he understands the issue as he
continues to run from his failed boast as to what he could prove
regarding Psalm 14:1.



Search as one might, I propose that one will not find where Veto Roley came
close to

meeting his responsibilities to even try and prove his boastful claim that the
Psalm 14:1

statement that



> "the fool sayeth in his heart



> there is no God"



means, is properly interpreted to mean,



> "all atheists are fools":



You will find Veto's failed "two-column thingy" that didn't even come close to
addressing the above claim, much less prove it.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:00 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Veto Roley's "fool" problem analyzed!

Let's first remember to always consider the specific context in which Veto Roley
is playing out his little diversion.

That is, Veto Roley boasted that he could prove that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley hasn't come close to proving up that claim.

Veto Roley most recently wrote:

> You (Robert) write, for instance
> that I (Veto)

>> "appear to simply post
>> commentaries agreeing
>> with me (Robert) that
>> Psalm 14:1..."

> suggesting that the commentaries
> do not say that an atheist is a fool.

I did not suggest that the commentaries

> "do not say that an atheist
> is a fool".

Veto has offered his own commentary claiming that, and he is welcome to post a
thousand commentaries that say

> "an atheist is a fool".

That, however, is simply not evidence in support of Veto's boast that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley can even try to quote a hundred other passages of scripture which he
thinks proves that atheists are some kind of fool.  Such evidence, however, will
not prove Veto Roley's boast that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Surely, a man of Veto Roley's stature knows and understands that just because
somewhere else there is proof that an atheist is some kind of fool does not
prove that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> means, is properly interpreted
> to mean that

>> "all atheists are fools".

That's just Hermeneutics 101, or so I have been told.

Veto writes, wanting to discuss a religious commentary:

> Let's take the one, Adam
> Clarke's, that appears, on
> the surface to agree with
> you.

Sounds familiar!

Any agreement with me by anyone Veto Roley touts, according to Veto Roley, is
going to be considered only "apparent".

Two can play that game!

Veto Roley didn't give any evidence that Adam Clarke even considered what is in
dispute here.

What Veto Roley did reference as to Adam Clarke indicates the agreement with me
is not only "apparent on the surface" but "real" in substance.

Adam Clarke is referenced as discussing something about the "fool" of Psalm
14:1.

That's what I have been contending for; that Psalm 14:1 has as its subject "the
fool" and is telling us something about "the fool".

Psalm 14:1 is not telling us that "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley writes, indicating he's determined to miss the issue:

> (O)ur discussion is not about
> classes other than professed
> atheists.

The discussion I am involved in is about the principles of sound reasoning such
as have been discussed and documented, in part, using Psalm 14:1 as its text.

Perhaps Veto Roley should consider working on his understanding of the
principles of sound reasoning independent of Psalm 14:1 which appears to
sensitive for him to objectively, reasonably consider.

Perhaps if Veto Roley can find some legitimate authorities, alive for possible
direct testimony, that understand the principles of sound reasoning and the
issue I have been discussing using Psalm 14:1 as the text, then we will see if
Veto has anything to rebut my simple, fundamental analysis which reaches the
conclusion that

> the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his heart
>> there is no God"

> DOES NOT MEAN, IS NOT
> PROPERLY INTERPRETED
> TO MEAN that

>> "all atheists are fools".

Sincerely,
Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----
From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 4:58 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri

Batty,

There are solid, good reasons that you got your nickname of "Batty," since you
prove yourself of being irrational.

You write, for instance that I "appear to simply post commentaries agreeing with
me that Psalm 14:1," suggesting that the commentaries do not say that an atheist
is a fool. Yet, it appears, you have not read the commentaries.

Let's take the one, Adam Clarke's, that appears, on the surface to agree with
you. Adam Clark writes about the Hebrew word "nabal", "The word is not to be
taken in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have been
some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are others who,
without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his providence; that is,
they acknowledge a Being of infinite power, &c., but give him nothing to do, and
no world to govern. 3. There are others, and they are very numerous, who, while
they profess to acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they
were persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward."

What Clarke says here is that the term "nabal" -- which is translated "fool" --
is not limited to the professed atheist. And, I agree with him on his point.
Instead of being limited to the professed atheist, he says nabal refers to the
following groups of people:

1) professed atheists and agnostics
2) Deists -- and you need to understand the religious philosophies of Clarke's
time when deism was held by many people, including Thomas Jefferson Basically,
Deism states that God created the universe, set the laws of nature in motion and
then retreated to heaven, having little concern or oversight about matters in
the universe.
3) those who live life as if God did not exist, even if they verbally
acknowledge His existence AND His real presence on the earth.

I also agree that these three classes are included in the term "nabal" and have
stated so in the past. But, Batty, our discussion is not about classes other
than professed atheists. Just as all practical atheists -- people who live as if
there is no God regardless of their profession of His existence -- are fools,
particularly are all professed atheists. Clarke is not saying that the professed
atheist is not a fool, but that the term fool covers more than just the
professed atheist.

Or, we can go to John Calvin, "I am content to follow the more generally
received interpretation, which is, that all profane persons, who have cast off
all fear of God and abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness."
This is the same argument being made by Clarke. And Calvin's description of the
fool -- someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity" -- certainly applies to the professed atheist. Who can argue that the
atheist is someone who has "cast off all fear of God and abandoned themselves to
iniquity."? The atheist is so unafraid of God that he does what few people would
do -- publically testifying that God does not exist. Further, since there is no
iniquity, no sin, greater than denying the existence of his Creator, the atheist
also abandons himself to inquity, chosing to do what seems right in his eyes
rather than submitting to the Lordship of his Creator. Calvin, then, describes
the atheist as
  being a fool.

Or, do you suppose Charles Spurgeon agrees with you? "The Atheist is the fool
preeminently, and a fool universally." Maybe, I misquoted Matthew Henry and he
agrees with you, "The sinner here described is an atheist." Or, did I miscopy
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, "The practical atheism and total
and universal depravity of the wicked, with their hatred to the good, are set
forth."

Batty, the atheist is a fool for saying in his heart that there is no God

Veto

---------------------------------------------------

Posted by:      "Robert Baty"
       rlbaty@...
               �

           rlbaty50



       Wed Oct�15,�2008 4:49�pm        (PDT)


             Veto Roley again misrepresents the issue in dispute.



Veto Roley's attempt to reason was incorrect, as previously noted,
because, for all his effort he failed to measure up to his boast
regarding Psalm 14:1.



Even now, for all his effort, he appears to simply post commentaries
agreeing with me that Psalm 14:1 tells us something about the "fools"
referenced therein.



The statement in Psalm 14:1 that



> the fool sayeth in his heart

> there is no God



does not logically convert, mean, or interpret to



> all atheists are fools.



Veto can go anywhere else he wishes to try and make an argument that
all atheists are fools, but for all his effort it won't make Psalm 14:1
say so!



That's my unrebutted position, after many failed efforts by Veto Roley and
others.



Sincerely,

Robert Baty



-----Original Message-----

From: Veto F. Roley

Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:28 AM

To: coCBanned@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty continues to prove his irrationality aruging
against a pri



Batty,



You claim that my reasoning is incorrect. But, you never give a valid
argument that the atheist is not a fool for denying, if the Christian
God exists, a God who will either, as some believe, destroy the
non-believing soul at judgment or, as the orthodox position holds and I
believe, banish the unbelieving soul for eternity to a hell prepared to
punish Satan and his angels. So, prove to me that the atheist is NOT a
fool for denying a God that will, at best, destroy him or, at worst,
banish him to an eternity where the worm does not die nor the fire does
not lessen.



As you are proving that the atheist is not a fool for denying God, you can also
prove the following claims as well...



That it is NOT foolish to cheat the IRS (and, as examples, you can use
the cases of Wesley Snipes and David Allen Coe -- the IRS still owns
Coe's song catalog despite the fact that royalties have long since
covered his tax and penalty debt -- or any other taxpayer who has tried
to cheat the IRS and found out the IRS doesn't play...)



That it is NOT foolish to go up to someone who is larger than you and
who has better fighting skills than you do and challenge them to a
fight (here you can use as an example the case of Jorge Lugo who found
out he COULD go through a plate glass window after throwing a bucket of
ice at Charles Barkley)



That it is NOT foolish to abuse drugs (to support this assertion, you
could mention that 28,723 people in the U.S. died from drug abuse --
both legal and illegal drugs -- in 2003)



That it is NOT foolish to smoke tobacco (to support this assertion, you
could mention that around 450,000 people in the U.S. died from
tobacco-related illnesses and cancers)



Batty, you have said before that the "fool" referred to in Psalms 14:1
does not refer to an atheist, that nabal should be understood in some
different manner. But, who are we to trust on this matter of
interpretation? You, who have no credibility on anything of note, or
John Calvin?



"The fool hath said. As the Hebrew word nabal signifies not only a
fool, but also a perverse, vile, and contemptible person, it would not
have been unsuitable to have translated it so in this place; yet I am
content to follow the more generally received interpretation, which is,
that all profane persons, who have cast off all fear of God and
abandoned themselves to iniquity, are convicted of madness. David does
not bring against his enemies the charge of common foolishness, but
rather inveighs against the folly and insane hardihood of those whom
the world accounts eminent for their wisdom. We commonly see that those
who, in the estimation both of themselves and of others, highly excel
in sagacity and wisdom, employ their cunning in laying snares, and
exercise the ingenuity of their minds in despising and mocking God. It
is therefore important for us, in the first place, to know, that
however much the world applaud these crafty and scoffing characters,

who allow themselves to indulge to any extent in wickedness, yet the
Holy Spirit condemns them as being fools; for there is no stupidity
more brutish than forgetfulness of God." (John Calvin's Commentary on
Psalms - Volume 1 -- http://www.ccel. org/ccel/ calvin/calcom08. xx.i.html)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Charles Spurgeon?



"The fool. The Atheist is the fool preeminently, and a fool
universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and
having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice.
Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very
existence of the Most High, so it is also the greatest imaginable
folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which
is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is
stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner
could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some
sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the
existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so
doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth
from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a
crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible
vengeance on

the fool who indulges it. The proverb says, "A fool's tongue cuts his
own throat," and in this instance it kills both soul and body for ever:
would to God the mischief stopped even there, but alas! one fool makes
hundreds, and a noisy blasphemer spreads his horrible doctrines as
lepers spread the plague." (C.H. Spurgeons's The Treasury of David --
http://www.studylig ht.org/com/ tod/view. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 014&verse= 001)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Adam Clarke?



"Verse 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. ] lbn
nabal, which we render fool, signifies an empty fellow, a contemptible
person, a villain. One who has a muddy head and an unclean heart; and,
in his darkness and folly, says in his heart, "There is no God."And
none," says one, "but a fool would say so." The word is not to be taken
in the strict sense in which we use the term atheist, that is, one who
denies the being of a God, or confounds him with matter. 1. There have
been some, not many, who have denied the existence of God. 2. There are
others who, without absolutely denying the Divine existence, deny his
providence; that is, they acknowledge a Being of infinite power,
&c., but give him nothing to do, and no world to govern. 3. There
are others, and they are very numerous, who, while they profess to
acknowledge both, deny them in their heart, and live as if they were
persuaded there was no God either to punish or reward." (Clarke's

  Commentary -- http://www.godrules .net/library/ clarke/clarkepsa 14.htm)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Matthew Henry?



"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. The sinner here
described is an atheist, one that saith there is no Judge or Governor
of the world, no Providence ruling over the affairs of men. He says
this in his heart. He cannot satisfy himself that there is none, but
wishes there were none, and pleases himself that it is possible there
may be none; he is willing to think there is none. This sinner is a
fool; he is simple and unwise, and this is evidence of it: he is wicked
and profane, and this is the cause." (Matthew Henry's Concise
Commentary on the Whole Bible -- http://bible. christiansunite. com/mhcc.
cgi?b=Ps& c=14)



Who are we to trust on this matter of interpretation? You, who have no
credibility on anything of note, or Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset &
David Brown?



"The practical atheism and total and universal depravity of the wicked,
with their hatred to the good, are set forth. Yet, as they dread God's
judgments when He vindicates His people, the Psalmist prays for His
delivering power.



1. Sinners are termed "fools," because they think and act contrary to
right reason (Genesis 34:7, Joshua 7:15, Psalms 39:8, 74:18,22)."
(Commentary Critical and Explanatory

on the Whole Bible -- http://www.biblestu dytools.net/ Commentaries/
JamiesonFaussetB rown/jfb. cgi?book= ps&chapter= 14)



If God exists, the atheist is a fool for saying there is no God. Anyone
who claims to be a Christian and argues otherwise is likewise a fool...



Veto

"The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years
of his life." --Muhammad Ali

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:09 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Veto Roley's empty boasts again; for the record!

Since Veto Roley appears determined to continue to falsely represent the history
of the matter, I present the following for ready reference to show what the
issue was that I was dealing with and to propose that, search as one might, he
will not find where Veto Roley came close to meeting his responsibilities to
even try and prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

> "the fool sayeth in his heart
> there is no God"

means, is properly interpreted to mean,

> "all atheists are fools":

----------------------------------------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8579

From: Veto Roley
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:11 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Authorities on Psalms 14:1

(excerpts)

The statement before us is,

> "The fool has said in his
> heart that there is no God."

(T)he correct rendering of this statement is

> "All atheists are fools"...

Veto Roley

--------------------------------------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coCBanned/message/8934

From: Veto Roley
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Rolie Polie Olie's "fool" and the IRS; another test!

(excerpt)

I'm going to try...to demonstrate the proof...that the interpretation of Pslams
14:1 that

> "all atheists are fools"

is a valid interpretation of

> "the fool has said in his
> heart that there is no God."

What is shown below is a two-column
Euclidean proof...

Statement 1:

> The Christian God exists and
> is revealed in the Bible.

Statement 2:

> Belief in God does not make
> Him real if He does not exist.
> Disbelief in God does not make
> Him false if He exists.

Statement 3:

> God, if He exists, is more powerful
> than the combined strength of
> humanity.

Statement 4:

> A man can possess, at the same
> time and even in related fields,
> great foolishness and great genius.

Statement 5:

> While great foolishness does not
> cancel great genius, the
> consequences of great foolishness
> can be greater than the memory of
> great genius.

Statement 6:

> The Bible declares someone who
> denies God, but who is wise in
> other areas, to be a fool.

Statement 7:

> Only positive faith in Him can
> please God.

Statement 8:

> Those without positive faith
> are hostile to God.

Statement 9:

> God's wrath is directed to those
> who do not have a positive belief
> in Him.

Statement 10:

> Neither agnostics nor atheists
> have a positive belief in the
> Christian God.

Statement 11:

> An atheist will face God's wrath
> because he does not a positive
> belief in Him.

Statement 12:

> Xxxx Xxxxxx is an atheist.

Statement 13:

> Xxxx Xxxxxx will, because of his
> negative belief in God, face God's
> wrath.

Statement 14:

> It is foolishness to oppose that
> which you can not beat when
> you gain nothing from that
> opposition.

Statement 15:

> Opposing God only brings His wrath.

Statement 16:

> It is foolish to oppose God since
> it only brings His wrath.

Statement 17:

> Atheists are foolish to oppose
> God since it only brings His wrath.

Statement 18:

> The atheist is a fool for saying
> in his heart that there is no God.

Statement 19:

> Xxxx is foolish to oppose God
> since it only brings His wrath.

Statement 20:

> Regardless of wisdom he may
> have in other fields, Xxxx is a
> fool for saying in his heart there
> is no God.

Veto Roley

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

My further comments:

Most will readily note that Veto's highly touted "two-column thingy" doesn't
come close to even dealing with his boast about what he can prove regarding
Psalm 14:1.

Search as you might in the archives, I propose that you won't find anything else
that comes any closer than his above, failed "two-column thingy"!

Similarly, I propose that you won't find anything in the archives where Veto
Roley has provided anything of substance related to his allegations about my
"Goliath of GRAS" being INvalid and UNsound.

Veto Roley simply, for apparently personal reasons, can't face the "Goliath of
GRAS" and so keeps promoting his ipse dixits against it.

Certainly, as Veto Roley admits in his latest messages, he's got "trust" issues,
but that involves his personal problems which I am unable to help him with; not
for lack of trying, but because Veto rejects my help.

Veto improperly tries to impute his problems with that onto me; a tactic that
has been used by other adversaries of mine on this list.

Perhaps now Veto Roley will take his own advice, if he cannot reform his
behavior and work on cleaning up some of the problems he has created in these
discussions, and just "shut up"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

------------Previous Messages-------------

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:23 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

What Veto Roley can't handle, and what is really bugging him:

--------------------------------------

I would like to post comments from one of the former leading lights within the
churches of Christ and its young-earth creation-science movement. To date, no
bonafide young- earth creation-science promoter has dared to repudiate, deny or
rebut the comments.

I would also then like to give my "Goliath of GRAS" argument for any who may
want to "come out" in response to its call and take up the public discussion as
to the argument's validity, soundness and
the proposed formal, in writing, for the record discussion on the evidence of
age.

The recommended propositions for the proposed discussion on the evidence of age
follows the presentation of the "Goliath of GRAS".

Here now to provide the context for considering my "Goliath of GRAS" are the
comments from that leading light amongst the young-earth creation-science
movement within the churches of Christ:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991

THE YOUNG EARTH

(excerpts)

"(T)he most serious area of conflict between the biblical account and the
evolutionary scenario is the chronological framework of history

> in other words,
> the age of the Earth.

While a young Earth/Universe presents no problem for a creationist, it is the
death knell to each variety of the evolutionary model.

A simple, straightforward reading of the biblical record indicates that the
Cosmos was created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

Much of the controversy today between creationists and evolutionists revolves
around the age of the Earth.

A large part of that controversy centers around the fact that there is no
compromise that will permit the old-Earth/young-Earth scenarios to coexist; the
gulf separating the biblical and
evolutionary views on the topic of the age of the Earth is just too large.

(W)e must 'query if vast time is indeed available.'

That is our purpose here.

There is ample scientific evidence to indicate that such time is not available,
and that the Earth is relatively young, not
extremely old.

That evidence needs to be examined and considered...

There is good scientific evidence that the Earth...has an age of only a few
thousand years, just as the Bible plainly indicates."

(end excerpt)

It is undisputed, as the above shows, that some folks believe that

> the Bible teaches

that

> "nothing is more than a few
> thousand years old".

The relevant question, when it comes to the fundamental young-earth
creation-science position on that point is whether or not the real world
evidence really does support that interpretation or if that interpretation is
subject to falsification based on the real world evidence.

I've developed a simple, logically valid argument (i.e., "Goliath of GRAS")
proposing that the real world interpretation of the text commonly associated
with the young-earth creation-science (i.e., "nothing is more than a few
thousand years old) movement is subject to falsification with reference to the
real world
evidence.

Here it is, the "Goliath of GRAS":

Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.

You are welcome to try your hand at impeaching the validity of the argument, or
simply accept it for what it is...a simple,
logically valid statement of the real world falsification test for the
fundamental real world claim commonly associated with
the young-earth creation-science movement.

It is further proposed that the only disputed aspect of the above argument, in
the context of the popular young-earth
creation-science movement, is the "evidence of age".

In order to deal with that issue, a formal, in writing, for the record
discussion is proposed with the following suggested
propositions:

Proposition #1:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #2:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the universe has not been in
> existence for more than ten
> thousand (10,000) years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd Greene

Proposition #3:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has been in existence
> more than one hundred thousand
> (100,000) years.

> Affirm: Todd Greene
> Deny: ???

Proposition #4:

> The scientific evidence shows that
> the earth has not been in existence
> for more than ten thousand (10,000)
> years.

> Affirm: ???
> Deny: Todd Greene

To date, I have not been able to facilitate the proposed discussion.

The invitation remains outstanding, with specific, logistical details to be
worked out between the two agreeing to engage
in the discussion.

Typically, those desiring to see my "Goliath of GRAS" defeated have themselves
retreated into the UNscientific position
summarized as follows:

> I've got my interpretation
> of the text regarding the
> real world and that trumps
> any real world evidence
> to the contrary.

The above position effectively concedes that young-earth creation-science cannot
stand up to scrutiny as being "science" and that the real world evidence
falsifies the fundamental young-earth creation-science claim that "nothing is
more than a few thousand years old".

That is a good thing to know.

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------

-----Original Message-----

From: Robert Baty
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 9:18 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Veto Roley again confirms my observations!

Veto writes:

> I (Veto Roley) took...and then...

What Veto is still in denial regarding is his failed effort to measure up to his
boast that he can prove that the Psalm 14:1 statement that

>> "the fool sayeth in his
>> heart there is no God"

> means, is properly
> interterpreted to mean

>> "all atheists are fools".

Veto Roley even now seems to not want to refer to his "17 pieces" as his highly
touted, but failed, "two-column Euclidean proof" that he never provided any
authorities in support thereof.

The substance of Veto Roley's continued demonstration is in the fact that he
does not deal with or even attempt to rebut, which he cannot do, the fact that

> for all Veto Roley knows

>> there are some things
>> more than a few thousand
>> years old,

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> valid, and

>> my "Goliath of GRAS" is
>> sound.

By his own admission, that is just fine with Veto Roley.

And that and his personal problems appear to be what keeps him from taking his
own advice and just "shutting up"!

Sincerely,
Robert Baty

-----Original Message-----

From: Veto F. Roley
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:40 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Batty's gnat of gras

Batty continues his irrationality by writing,

> "Am I become your enemy
> because I have told you the
> truth? I provide some good
> empirical evidence that such
> can be the case."

Batty, your writings PROVE you wouldn't know Truth if it was presented on a
level that a kindergarden student could learn Truth.

I took the patently, prima facie obvious (an atheist is fool for denying the
Christian God if that God exists) and then, since you are so blind to Truth that
you don't comprehend the obvious, broke it down into 17 child-size pieces for
you, demonstrated the Truth of each of those pieces and painstakingly showed you
how those 17 pieces led to the conclusion that, if the Christian God exists, the
atheist is a fool for rejecting Him.

It was demonstrated to you in detail that a person could be perceived, rightly
or wrongly, as "wise" in one area (for instance, there is nothing that prevents
an atheist from being the best civil engineer in the world or from solving very
complex math problems), but very foolish in another area. It was shown to you
that a person could be wise in one area and, AT THE SAME TIME, foolish in
another.

Moreover, I showed you that, for the purposes of this statement, one can claim
to be an atheist, agnostic or apathetic toward religion and fall under the
"fool" category in regards to God.

Then you write that you have "good empirical evidence" to prove -- what?

That I have a beef with you for some reason or that the atheist is wise for
rejecting God if He exists (and Batty, either the athiest is a fool for
rejecting God or he is wise -- those are the ONLY two choices open to you).

I haven't seen evidence of either.

I stand by my promise that once you start behaving rationally and intelligently,
then I will stop calling you a fool.

You can do this in one or two ways -- admit that you are wrong in regards to an
athiest being a fool or declare yourself to be either an athiest or agnostic.

The first admission admits the Truth.

The second admission provides a rational context for your denial that the
athiest is a fool for rejecting God.

It is your inablity to comprehend Truth that results in me calling you Batty.

As for any "evidence" that you might have presented... I simply haven't seen
anything.

All I've seen is the same old tired rehashing of what has been proven false.

To put it in a way that you may can understand -- although I have my doubts that
you have enough rationality to understand anything -- it would be like you
arguing Ernst Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" or the validity of
Piltdown Man in a discussion of evolution AFTER those items had been carefully
explained and demonstrated to you as being scientific frauds.

The more your argue your discredited points, the lower your credibility gets --
even though your credibility with me is so low I really don't know how it could
get any lower.

Repeating those arguments which have been correctly rejected as outright error
does not make your errors correct, Batty.

Batty, you haven't made a valid argument since I've been on this board, with
Truth being the arbiter of what is valid.

Truth, Batty... no. You don't know Truth.

This is why you have ZERO credibility with me.

This is why that I distrust ANYTHING you say.

Veto Roley

------------------------------------
------------------------------------







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Rudy Schellekens
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 10:49 AM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@...> wrote:
>
> Rudy's message follows my name below.
>
> Alas, Rudy gets off to a bad start!
>
> Indeed, he didn't learn all he could have from Thomas B. Warren!
>
> Rudy starts off with:
>
> > You may have a VALID argument,
> > Robert, but your conclusion will
> > ALWAYS be wrong if either of
> > your premises is wrong...
>
> Well, Rudy, before getting any further into the matter, you need to
resolve the issue as to whether or not the "Goliath of GRAS" is a
VALID argument; and let us know your position on that in no uncertain
terms.
>
> Otherwise, your claim is simply false!

Rudy writes;
No there is logic in action!  "Unless you say I am right, you are
wrong..."

Baty wrote:
That one or both of the premises may not be true does NOT mean the
conclusion is wrong!

Rudy writes:
Once again, a shining example of one who claims to be logical.  How
about reading a book, "Symbolic Logic" by Susan K. Langer?


It merely means the premises do not "lead to" the conclusion.  An
INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND (i.e., one or both premises being false)
argument can have a true conclusion.

Rudy writes:
If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the true conclusion...


> The truth of the conclusion is not the thing, but whether the truth
of the premises, if they are true, actually "leads to" the conclusion.
>
> If one or both of the premises are not true, then even a true
conclusion does not follow from the premises!
>
> Rudy, please now show DBWillis how it is done and admit, explain and
correct your error on this simple matter without delay!
>
> DBWillis is needing a good example!
>
> Sincerely,
> Robert Baty
>
> ------------Rudy's Message--------------
>
> From: Rudy Schellekens
> To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:41 PM
>
> Subject: [coCBanned] Re: DBWillis as a false witness against my
"Goliath of GRAS"!
>
>  --- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Baty" <rlbaty@> wrote:
> >
> > Here's another one before I leave for a while:
> >
> > DBWillis falsely claims:
> >
> > > (I)f either your major or minor
> > > premises are wrong, then your
> > > conclusion is wrong.
> >
> > That is just false!
> >
> > DBWillis knows, or should know that that is false!
> >
> > The conclusion may well be true even though one or both of the
> premises are false.
> >
> >
> Rudy writes:
>
> You may have a VALID argument, Robert, but your conclusion will
> ALWAYS be wrong if either of your premises is wrong...
>
> I may not have learned all I could from Dr. Thomas Warren, but I
learned that when, "...The argument is valid. All of the premises are
true... It is therefore a sound argument... It therefore demands
> the truth of the conclusion..."
>
> So, Robert, if ONE of the premises is NOT true, the truth of the
conclusion is??? RIGHT! NON-existent!
>
> I am not a friend of Willis - but that does not make what you quoted
> automatically wrong...
>
> -----------------------------------
> -----------------------------------
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: w_w_c_l
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:15 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Rudy Schellekens checks in on the "Goliath of GRAS"
dispute!

--- In coCBanned@yahoogroups.com, "Rudy Schellekens"
<rudyschellekens@...> wrote:
>

> Baty wrote:
> > That one or both of the premises may not be true
> > does NOT mean the conclusion is wrong!
> >
> > It merely means the premises do not "lead to"
> > the conclusion.  An INVALID or VALID/UNSOUND
> > (i.e., one or both premises being false)
> > argument can have a true conclusion.
>
> Rudy writes:
> Once again, a shining example of one who claims
> to be logical.  How about reading a book, "Symbolic
> Logic" by Susan K. Langer?
>
> Rudy writes:
> If a + b = c, but a = NOT a, c can never be the
> true conclusion...


I doubt you'll find anywhere in Langer's book where
she says that "a + b = c" is an argument, valid or
otherwise.

"a + b = c" is a proposition.

If Rudy lives in a world where a = NOT a, then all
bets are off.

Nevertheless, valid arguments can have false premises
and a true conclusion:

P1: If cows give chocolate milk, then chickens lay eggs.
P2: Cows give chocolate milk.

C: Therefore, chickens lay eggs.


OR, in the case of Robert's argument:

>Major premise:

> If God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years, then the
> interpretation of the text by
> some is wrong.

> Minor premise:

> God's word (the text) says
> everything began over a period
> of six days, is interpreted by
> some to mean it was six 24-hour
> days occurring a few thousand
> years ago, and there is empirical
> evidence that some thing is
> actually much older than a few
> thousand years.

> Conclusion:

> The interpretation of the text
> by some is wrong.


It could be the case that the minor premise is false --
that there is no evidence that anything is more than
a few thousand years old, but if the truth is that
everything came into being just last week, then the
interpretation of the text would still be wrong.



Rick









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: Max Burgin
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:45 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Logic?

Rick, save yourself the effort and trouble of dealing with     Baty's batty do
called "logic[?]".

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:38 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: Testing DBWillis and a fundamental position!

David Willis here,

Baty:>>> While I propose that it is possible
> to  hypothesize a world in which
> some thing really is more than
> a  few thousand years old and
> we can so determine from
> evidence  independent of any
> interpretation of a religious
> text, DBWillis  has yet to come
> to that knowledge!

> I await DBWillis'  correction of his
> error. He can hypothesize such
> a world, we  know he can do so,
> and he knows we know that he
> can do  so.

> DBWillis just needs to correct
> his answer on step four  and
> then proceed to step five.>>

I don't need to correct  it.  It is untrue that (using your standard for
"evidence") we could  determine the age of an instantly created mature world. 
If
indeed God  chose to instantly create, then your standard and method for aging
would give a  wrong answer.  Sorry but dems da berries.  That is INDEPENDENT
of  anything I am told by the text.  I know that by common sense.  It is
exactly like the same problem I'd have in determining how long a tree was in my
yard.  Depends on if it were planted as a seed or moved there.  In a  real
world it may be possible to look closely at the roots etc...however, I use  it
only as an illustration.  If God wants to make a fully formed mountain  or soil
or atmosphere INSTANTLY, there is no reason He would or could not.

Stop wasting our time with your silly syllogism.  It is based on a  slanted
definition of terms...and no YE with any sense would agree to such a
definition.  If such a definition will give us a false answer about the 
Resurrection
then it is a bad one to use.

And PLEASE try to cut out all the repetitive reposting of old
stuff...pasting it in at the end of your posts.  It will cause me to  overlook
anything new
you may say...I promise you.  I am sick of wading  through it to see if
something new is in there.

DW





**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 6:56 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] If God HAD wanted....

David Willis here,

Rick>>Around these parts, most of us assume that "God's word"
> > > cannot be wrong, and I'll be the first to say that if
> > > God really does say something and conventional science
> > > wants to argue about it, conventional science is badly
> > > mistaken.>>

Some may think this to be a silly  question, but if God HAD wanted to
describe a year-long global flood which  killed all land life and all humans
except
those in the ark....how much plainer  would He have had to put it for us to be
convinced that IS what He meant to  describe?  Look at the DETAILS given.
There is NO difference between  the style and literary formulation of the
history
described in Gen. 6-9 than  there is for the rest of Genesis, including all
the history of the family of  Abraham and the events of the people of Israel.
It is plain ol' vanilla  HISTORY in its textual form in Gen. 6-9 like all the
REST of the history of the  OT.  We may as well doubt ANY detail of history in
the Bible because  some atheist tells us he thinks it conflicts with what is
possible using a  naturalistic approach.  OUT go all miracles...ALL of them.
What more  besides reading Gen. 6-9, would it TAKE to convict God's word of
lying about an  event that didn't happen?  How much plainer would the text have
to be in  describing an event...which did NOT happen (supposedly)...in order
to be proof  that God lied?  Talk about non-falsifiability!  It apparently is a
  non-falsifiable question as to whether the Bible lies.  If it LOOKS like it
lies, you just need to twist the text into a pretzel to fit a view which
will make the atheist scientists happy.  It is dishonesty in handling the  text.
It is not exegesis.



**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-----Original Message-----
From: DBWILLIS@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 7:39 PM
To: coCBanned@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [coCBanned] Re: DBWillis not a false witness

David Willis here,

Todd>>David, it is a fact that there are millions of Christians  around the
world who disagree with young earth creationism because they are  aware
that it is a scientifically false idea, and thus a false  religious
doctrine. >>

I don't disagree that many AEs are  theists and christians.

Stop misrepresenting me.  If you think anything I said indicates  otherwise,
then I will gladly clarify again for you so you can get off that  little
soapbox.  I don't believe that all AEs are atheists.  I believe  that some
theists
believe that naturalistic "science" is what should be used to  determine what
took place in the past and that will IMO give false  answers.  Atheists can
believe that, but I can't see how a theist possibly  could believe that by using
a naturalistic-only view of evidence...that they  will get a true conclusion.
  Some events that theists believe took place  are contradictory to
naturalism.







**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog,
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]